***  WORLD NEWS  ***

&

OUR GUIDE'S BOOKS 

SCROLL DOWN FOR WORLD NEWS HEADLINES

Adrian's writing is found on the book shelves of some discerning people on both sides of the Atlantic.

 Both Dick Nesbitt-Dufort and Adrian Hill are published authors. Dick's father wrote a book about his experiences as a special operations pilot flying agents into Occupied France. Dick has edited and produced the memoirs of a soldier during the Napoleonic Wars. Adrian has written novels about espionage set in South Korea and Switzerland and remains the only British diplomat to have written part of the history of the US Department of State. When not organising sky tours he's working on a novel set during the height of the Vietnam War.

These books are on sale through Parapress based in Tunbridge Wells.

Parapress

For those interested in the Vietnam War copies of  'Escape with Honor' written together by Ambassador Francis ' Terry ' McNamara and Adrian may be found via this link to the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training in Washington DC.

***

When Adrian Hill served as a diplomat one of his most rewarding jobs was Director of British Information Services across Canada. At one stage he gave Britain's messages across the United States as well. Apart from network and local television and radio broadcasts a key part of his job was to brief and often write editorials for the hundreds of newspapers across North America, concentrating on foreign news. Most newspapers in North America view the World from a continent which could get along comfortably without anyone else - and the US/Canadian border is a surprising obstacle. Henry Ginsberg of the New York Times once challenged Adrian to find any Canadian news in his own paper. At that time Henry was their correspondent in Ottawa - he returned to New York City as the Foreign Editor and the Canadians featured more often!

Adrian's editorial contributions with a British slant proved highly popular right across North America so alongside these touring and history pages we opened this editorial page. Here we try to bring some historical perspective to the latest political and military events around the World. Military experience as a paratrooper came in handy as a diplomat. Adrian knows Afghanistan, Pakistan and India from his very first overseas posting as a diplomat serving at the British Deputy High Commission in Lahore and subsequent return visits. His career took in Cyprus and the Near East, Vietnam, Northern Ireland, Switzerland, Canada, South Korea and Jamaica and most places along the flight path.

Apart from witnessing huge armoured and airmobile battles from the Near East to the Far East, Adrian studied campaigns and battlefields on four continents, has written three books and articles for the Royal United Services Institute Journal.

This news page has a complimentary purpose. Although this website is about our tours we also try to promote the heritage of the Atlantic Charter and the Special Relationship. The United Nations and NATO owe their existence to the Atlantic Charter, unique among treaties in that there were no signatures, just messages to their respective cabinets from Churchill and Roosevelt on board a battleship and a cruiser anchored off Newfoundland - plus mutual trust at a time of great danger for the democracies.

Updates will occur when the news makes one worthwhile. Articles on British defence matters are very much works in progress and frequently edited, improved, modified to reflect new conversations and fresh information. All views expressed are personal reflections based on talking to people involved in events and over thirty years military and diplomatic service in the world's hot spots including three wars.

Adrian Hill

************

WORLD NEWS HEADLINES

THANK YOU MR MUKHERJEE

India's Finance Minister has done the British voters a big favour. A leaked paper from his office reveals that the Indian Government did not want British aid money partly because the price was a campaign about Indian poverty run by the British Overseas Aid Department to justify its largesse. When the Indians said thanks but no thanks, they were subjected to a lobbying campaign by the British Overseas Aid Department ( I'm not using its official name because it's a tongue twister - DFID for short. ) who claimed that declining aid would embarrass their political masters. So the Indians relented and accepted £ 1 billion over the last four years and a further £ 600 millions over the next three years. The aid department says they will focus on local governments rather than the central government in New Delhi.

Add to this political stew two more ingredients. Here's a quote from the Telegraph.

FOGGY NEW YEAR

' May you live in interesting times.'

Old Chinese curse

Forecasting our voyage through this coming year is not straight forward. But here goes with a few hostages to fortune, both good and bad, though most good - providing we seize the chances that will come our way.

Cameron's government know only how to slash budgets. Those with business experience behave like accountants. Britain desperately needs growth, the only long term solution to the lunatic spending by Labour and irresponsible borrowing by two big banks. We should not forget that banks like Standard Chartered are world leaders, operate mostly outside Britain, and make money. Their message is clear - grow the business in the parts of the world where the local economies grow fast.

More below at Cameron in Euroland.

Britain's relationship with the EC has changed, never again will be quite the same. France and Germany with the EC Commission are drawing up a blue print for an EC of 26 countries that all belong to the Euro and some time ahead will become a single state. Though its parliament is in Strasbourg and its civil service in Brussels the decisions will come from the European Central Bank in Frankfurt ( after consultation with Berlin ) because the long suffering German voters - who have never been consulted - yet again are going to be asked to pay for all this folly de grandeur. 

Now the plan may not work. Angela Merkel's government desperately wants to avoid picking up the bill for the Euro debt crisis. France tried to twist the rules so that Britain would pay and blundered. Britain is now on a course to distance herself from the EC other than the Single Market. The more unfavourable the terms become, the less reason for Britain to stay in the Single Market. This is the policy of the present French government by using majority voting within the EC on matters where Britain has no veto.

There is every possibility that some countries may have to reach an arrangement with their creditors that keeps them within the Euro zone if not within the Euro. Leaving the Euro entirely might prove more catastrophic than some form of devaluation within the Euro combined with an option to climb back on board at a later stage. One only has to look at Hungary to see what happens to a small economy with a national currency that borrowed heavily in Euros and Swiss francs. I simply do not believe that the political price of slash and burn is good for Europe in the long term. Eurocrats believe they rule a socialist super state from Europe's restaurant capital, Brussels. Some people in Greece are so poor already that they are selling their children because they no longer have the money to buy them enough food.

*

I've deleted many of the warning articles on this website because events have caught up with the forecasts.

So I'll just cover the main flash points. As forecast two years back, once again Iran is threatening merchant shipping with closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The Royal Navy have a small though highly expert force of minesweepers stationed in the Gulf - which the US Navy rely upon - with a frigate or destroyer. HMS Daring is about to take over as the destroyer. I hope the new defence secretary has been warned that while she carries a superb air defence missile system, saving money has denied her a long range defence system - Daring has the ability to carry the 70 mile range Harpoon missile against surface targets - but unless I've missed something, none are fitted. Nor indeed Tomahawk cruise missiles. The Defence Secretary should put this right, fast, because he'll be the Minister thrown to the wolves if anything goes wrong.

Obviously, an aircraft carrier with a commando carrier would act as a strong deterrent to any Iranian tempted to disrupt peaceful shipping transiting the strait. Iran's threats simply reinforce the argument for doubling or tripling the strength of the Royal Navy. 

The Argentine President, Mrs Kirchner, poor lady, has landed in hospital with cancer. I wish her a speedy and full recovery. ( Update - fortunately Mrs Kirchner did not have cancer but she still underwent quite a serious operation and I wish her a speedy recovery.) Meanwhile ships flying the Falkland Islands' flag are treated unfairly and illegally by three South American countries. Some moderate strengthening of the Falkland Islands defences is prudent - deterrence is a lot cheaper than another war - and I would suggest more infantry, possibly artillery, another flight or even a squadron of Typhoons - why not some of the Typhoons that we are told are no longer required because they ' only ' provide air defence? The case for more destroyers and submarines needs no further words here.

Somalia and its pirates still pollute the Horn of Africa. I find it absurd that Somalia is allowed to hold the world's shipping to ransom on a permanent basis. If the Royal Navy was the size it should be, we could have dealt with the pirates ourselves.

Afghanistan looks more and more a sequel to Vietnam. Fed up with North Vietnamese duplicity Nixon finally allowed US Navy fighters to mine Haiphong harbour and sent the B 52s over Hanoi for eleven days during Christmas 1972. The Politburo sued for peace. At that point the USA had won the war. All previous agreements in Paris - allowing the North Vietnamese Army to stay in South Vietnam - should have been torn up. American prisoners were North Vietnam's only bargaining chip. Instead of sending back the bombers, Kissinger surrendered everything that had been won, and the final betrayal by Congress came to fruition two years later. The lesson was that communist regimes in China and the Soviet Union were better allies than the American democracy.

President Obama has read Lewis Sorley. As the troop numbers reduce so will the logistic burden. This opens a strategic window. Close the supply routes through Pakistan. Once the NATO forces no longer rely on Pakistan - for anything - then the remaining force in Afghanistan should concentrate on destroying the Pakistan controlled Taliban, including treating anywhere along the North West Frontier and within Pakistan as hostile. Aid payments to Pakistan should stop. I know this is hard on the poorest but the sooner Pakistan is dismantled, the better for the them. At present they are treated as free serfs by a small, arrogant elite. The best hope for the millions of poor in Pakistan is that one day they'll live in four provinces of democratic India.

One lesson from Afghanistan's history over the last 150 years is that you don't go to war against Afghanistan unless you're prepared to install a vassal king and support his descendants for a century or more. Colonial warfare is a long term venture.

President Obama has announced defence budget reductions of about $ 450 billions over the coming decade in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan. This means a cut of approximately 7% to the present $ 650 billions a year. Not many details yet, however, the President explained that America would shift its strategic weight towards the Pacific. The main reduction would fall on the Army with some 90,000 less personnel. More emphasis will be given to special forces and high technology such as drones. The Navy will keep all eleven aircraft carriers. New bases are under construction in Australia and others in Pacific allied countries may follow. The most interesting detail given so far, concerns the new stealth bomber project - partly intended for destroying China's missile threat to the US Navy's aircraft carriers - its going ahead.

President Obama didn't say it - but his announcement carried a warning for Europe. Americans are fed up with defending wealthy Europeans who refuse to pay even the minimum insurance premium for their own safety.

This programme is much more carefully judged than David Cameron's foolish slashing of whole capabilities, wrecking of high technology industry such as advanced aircraft production with the consequent loss of highly trained naval and air personnel, plus thousands of skilled engineers.

A further example of this bean counting group think is that a large number of officers and men have been made redundant. These are the people who should have been given a deal - part-time employment - and told to plan the expansion of our reserve naval, land and air forces.

Finally, Cameron's lexicon for slashing our armed forces and diplomatic service - namely, that sound finances are our best defence. It is brainless. Frankly, it is downright stupid to slash the means, military, diplomatic and industrial, that will haul us from recession and make us once more a wealthy country. It is brainless to hand over millions to countries that are over-taking us economically - we still give aid to Brazil, China and India.  It is brainless to hand over billions to the EC for multi-lateral aid - most of which goes to former French, Belgium and Dutch colonies. Who advises them to press on regardless of the wider world? This is intellectual idleness on an industrial scale. What is the British national interest? Zero. All that money should go to our own diplomats and armed forces and aid budget.

I offer a single example. Switzerland is a key friend of Britain in Europe and a valued trading partner. We and the Swiss have the two big European currencies outside the Euro. We are likely to find ourselves in a similar relationship with the Single Market and EC decision making in the near future. Events are throwing us together once again. The British Embassy has lost its posts in Zurich and Basel and has been stripped almost bare of UK based staff. Swiss tell me that our embassy has no profile, nobody knows of its existence save a few officials. Quite a few Swiss think our embassy has closed. And these are people running quite big industries and businesses. Is this really the way we want to conduct our diplomacy in Europe?

There are 27 countries within the EC and only 4 large UK embassies. Cameron was forced to invoke our veto - because we had no allies round the table - one is left wondering if the reckless and relentless dismantling of the Embassy in Bern reflects the general state of our smaller embassies across Europe. 

*

CAMERON IN EUROLAND

For once the Prime Minister got something right - even if he's not entirely clear why. A seven year old could have gone to the summit and made the same decision although they would have found something better to do than spend a whole night defending the obvious. Euroland knew perfectly well that Cameron could not sign away the City of London and a large chunk of Britain's wealth. The deal struck amongst themselves has little credibility and does nothing about the present Euro crisis.

The Single Market is the reason to stay inside the fortress walls - as the Koreans describe the EC - not because of trade ( Britain's is far too involved with Europe when it should focus on growing markets, not shrinking ones ) but investment. Should the Eurogroup try to freeze out British exports, the Germans would suffer most in a trade war, not the French. Germany has a very large trade surplus with Britain. France would lose money if all the British pensioners came home. Britain would lose if the rules of the Single Market were stacked against our companies as a way of luring investors across the Channel. This appears the present French government's policy.

What next?

Let me offer the message I gave the other night to several ambassadors from the EC and member countries.

The more huffing and puffing by Continentals, the more the normally politically disinterested, some would say apathetic British voters will start taking more interest. The sums for our EC membership are not good. We run two huge trade deficits on the back of a surplus from financial services exports. Our deficit with China at £ 30 billions a year and our deficit with Germany around £ 25 billions. There is also a deficit with Holland of around £ 6 billions a year. Add our contribution to the EC budget of £ 9 billions a year and it's not hard to see that leaving the EC and raising an import duty wall against China, might turn our deficit into a surplus rather quickly. Nearly all our trade with the other EC countries is balanced.

At present just over half the British voters would quit the EC tomorrow. Only politicians, David Cameron among them, keep Britain within the EC. Cameron tends to follow opinion polls rather than lead opinion. UKIP takes many votes from the Conservatives. Were the Conservatives able to lure back those UKIP voters - who want to quit the EC today - then Cameron could dissolve the coalition, call a snap general election, and win an overall majority.

 British companies should keep a foothold in Europe but expand in the growth regions of the Globe. The British Government should prepare for a war of attrition against Euroland and the EC Commission in Brussels. We will have to use the same tactics as the Irish used to entice investment and generally make these islands much more attractive to overseas investors. Despite the Sarkosy war of words, Volkswagen has appointed Standard Chartered as its global bank. We also have to build new political alliances founded on trade - and security - which means the Government must wake up. The world has changed. Forget most recent decisions on foreign policy, international aid and defence.

Politicians and the Foreign Office must take the blame for the defeatist obsession with merging into Europe. This has been going on since the 1960s. Oddly, Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair had one thing in common, both wished to see Britain grow strong again - the difference was that Margaret Thatcher succeeded. Our trade figures tell the basic story. Just take two countries - the USA and Germany - where our exports are roughly £ 30 billions a year. We have a surplus with the USA but not with Germany. Why can't we sell more to 300 million Americans than we sell 80 million Germans? And therein lies the whole sorry tale. Over three years in Korea we doubled British exports through teamwork with the British, Korean and American media. Despite an ambassador who loathed the commercial staff. We attacked on two fronts - persuaded British businessmen to jump on a plane and come to Korea where personal relationships are paramount, helped the Koreans win democracy which meant workers were paid properly and the playing field flattened over night. Nobody has pulled the same trick since because the strategy was disapproved of by the FCO though not by the British Overseas Trade Board - nor indeed, America's diplomats! 

Playground name calling by Sarkosy and his Ministers leaves me vindicated over the absurd defence partnership with France. It's over - a pity because both countries' armed forces really tried to make it work. With friends like that.......unfortunately the politicians take the decisions. The good news is that Cameron's government no longer can justify defence cuts by claiming France will fill any gaps. We're going to need a powerful navy again, triple the size of our present shrunken fleet, and the sooner we start building ships, the better.

Euroland is a Continental group that trades largely with each other. Britain has always looked to the open sea.

 *

NAVAL AIR POWER

Cameron is also responsible for the Royal Navy losing its only aircraft carrier armed with Harrier fighters. We were told this would save one-and-a-half billion pounds. Now it seems that same sum will be needed to convert the new carriers from ships intended to launch jump-jets to launching conventional fighters with catapults. Elsewhere on this website you may read why this is complete nonsense. In a nutshell, no money is saved, probably much more needed.

HMS Ocean launches Army Air Corps helicopters against coastal targets in Libya. As I understand it, these helicopters are not designed to spend weeks at sea - all six will be written off on return to Britain because the salt and humidity are gradually ruining their complex electronics. Keeping our strike carrier, HMS Ark Royal, on station for the last months would have cost about £ 20 millions. The RAF bombing campaign has cost about £ 3-5 millions a day and the eventual scrapping of the six helicopters adds a further £ 120 millions to the bill. I am told that our Libyan air operations already have cost £ 1.75 billion - ten times the amount required for an aircraft carrier to do the same job. This is a Prime Minister who claims that he saves tax payers' money by making the professional choices on defence. He's a fool.

According to NATO figures, French aircraft have been flying about 33% of all strike sorties whilst the British aircraft flew just 10% (700 out of 7,223 total sorties up to the 15 August. Even Denmark managed more than the UK (11%), and Italy flew about as many sorties as the UK despite not starting to participate in NATO operations until the 27 April. Granted many of the RAF’s strike sorties were more effective than those flown by our allies, but on the other hand if support sorties are included in totals then its percentage of missions flown becomes even lower.

The key weapon for France was her aircraft carrier, Charles de Gaulle. Positioned off the Libyan shore, the 18 fixed wing aircraft (10 Rafale, 6 Super Etendard and 2 E-2C Hawkeye) in her hard worked air group flew 1,350 sorties (most but not all being strike sorties) during 120 days of air operations. On an average day she was flying about twice as many strike missions as the RAF could manage. Additionally, aircraft from Charles de Gaulle could react to targets of opportunity in as little as 20 minutes, by contrast it would take six hours before RAF jets based in the UK could hit a target, or 90 minutes if flying from Italian bases.

Britain's government rewards the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force with sackings and broken promises - thousands of married quarters remain a national disgrace.

Almost worse is the mass of evidence from the Government that they have not a clue about strategy.   

The real special relationship?

One gains the strong impression that the Windsors and Obamas have struck up a friendship. Letters and phone calls were exchanged over the last year and the warmth of their welcome no secret. This good news reflects the original instant chemistry between Roosevelt and Churchill, Kennedy and Macmillan, Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

The Queen's first public reaction to her Grandson's wedding to Kate, ' It was amazing! ' - says a great deal about her own and the Duke's appetite for keeping up with the new generations' way of doing things. They are an example to all those of us with plenty of miles on the clock.

Equally, the Obamas' instinct to strike up a friendship with a rather special British couple old enough to be their grandparents, sends a message far and wide. Don't write off your seniors - we might know more than you think!

Last summer Barack Obama became the first US President to address the British Parliament in Westminster Hall. Since 1945 only Charles de Gaulle, Nelson Mandela, and Pope Benedict the XVI have addressed Parliament in this magnificent place. The photo does not convey its vastness, so add it to your list of sites. This is the oldest part of the Palace of Westminster, built in 1087 and given its splendid hammer beam roof in 1393. When first built it was the largest hall in Europe and the palace and abbey stood on Thorney Island beside the River Thames. Many great events, both tragic and joyful, have taken place in this splendid monument, including some of the most famous political trials in English history - also some of the most splendid banquets.

This was a special occasion and the President rose to the moment with the kind of poetry so lacking among his audience of plastic, parish pump politicians. Both they and the media present were struck silent - indeed, the President could be forgiven for going home thinking that the only part of his speech that struck a cord was when he reminded that his grandfather had been a British Army cook - such is the the eloquent shock of fine oratory. The two Speakers, Lords and Commons, however, gave excellent addresses in welcome and thanks although some of the UK media viewed this as fawning rather than normal good manners. Such is the ignorance of the modern fourth estate.

The President reminded the British who we are, how we are a people of noble ambitions, warned our alliance has plenty more work for mighty challenges lie ahead. Most of his message passed over the heads of those sitting in the hall. Fortunately we live in an age of instant communication and I think millions of British voters took the message on board. Whether this jolts Cameron's coalition into reversing their cuts to our diplomacy and defence services, before the democracies are overwhelmed by the forces of totalitarian and corrupt power, remains a question.

I'm grateful that the most intellectual President since Roosevelt used this special moment to remind us who we are.   

*

During summer 1956, fed up with critics and dire warnings, Anthony Eden sent for the greatest captain of them all - Sir Basil Liddell-Hart, defence correspondent, military historian, world respected master of tactical and strategic ideas. Eden wanted Basil Liddell-Hart to look at the plan, or shall we say endorse Eden's master plan.

Wearing a tropical light weight cream suit, one fine day, Liddell-Hart strolled up Downing Street and was ushered into the Prime Minister's office. Remember all readers less than seventy years old that in those days we still wrote with fountain pens filled from ink bottles. Basil Liddell-Hart told the Prime Minister that his plan would not work. The Prime Minister reached for the ink well on his desk and hurled it at his visitor. Basil Liddell-Hart reached the nearest weapon. Moments later the great historian was observed walking down Downing Street with his cream suit spattered with blue ink. The Prime Minister's muffled squawks led to his discovery under the waste paper bin rammed over his head.

Eden's career ended dismally. Basil Liddell-Hart died seven years before Eden yet despite the usual brigade of people revising the lives of the dead - who cannot answer back - remains admired and respected by those with any understanding of tactics and strategy.

*

The government's job is to provide our diplomats with enough resources to spot these potential seismic shifts. This does not mean an ability to predict that Mubarak or Gadafi is going to lose his Presidential Palace. Rather, our spies and diplomats should learn to recognise trends, often discernable from simple facts - the younger generation in these countries are literate, many are well educated, and they vastly outnumber the pensioners whole rule them through oppression.

Our armed forces need enough versatile equipment for dealing with all sorts of military threats and civil emergencies. Providing enough resources for the nation's defence is the government's most fundamental duty.

*

Presently I see not a hint of this coalition government providing enough resources for either task, quite the opposite.

' Double the effort and square the error.'

 The late Sir Robert Thompson, over a Chinese dinner in Saigon, describing to Adrian the worst form of strategy.

Trident II - no longer independent, no longer fire proof. The patrol aircraft - cost £ 4 billions - that make sure our nuclear submarines are not trailed, have been axed by David Cameron's laughable defence team. The Liberal policy of nuclear disarmament has sneaked through the back door and the voters remain blissfully ignorant.

Moreover, at present, lacking maritime and sigint patrol aircraft, we cannot send a major task force - safely - out from Portsmouth Harbour into our own coastal waters.

For some thoughts on Britain's nuclear deterrent - what it deters, what it ought to deter, what is required - click the photo above.

*

America's armed forces enjoy a fine tradition of openness towards new ideas from any quarter - including civilians - often from places beyond the United States. This continued throughout the Vietnam War. A few years after the Vietnam War the Commanding General of the 82 Airborne Division, Sandy Molloy, asked me to spend some time with the division and look at their methods of doing business from strategy to tactics. Several changes resulted. Some of the ideas eventually were published in the RUSI Journal. Tell me any other armed forces in the World that are so open to new ideas? General David Petraeus and many others continue this tradition.

KHAKI BLINKERS

Some of our generals have been making a lot of noise over the last year. Not all, but too many. Several have involved themselves in party politics behind the backs of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, not to mention a much larger number of Army officers, who, still serving or retired, do not share their opinions.

*

Sir David Richards - Chief of the Defence Staff - talks about a ' tanks for horses ' moment. He's four decades behind those of us who served in Vietnam although, regretfully, in the case of Britain's Army he is right.

Some forty years ago, on the 30 January 1971, American armoured reconnaissance troops advanced towards the abandoned airfield at Khe Sanh. Within hours a huge helicopter lift had delivered an infantry brigade onto the plateau and seized the airfield. The armoured reconnaissance force moved further along Route 9 and reached the Laos border. A few days later South Vietnam's three finest divisions crossed into Laos. Their task was to sit astride the Ho Chi Minh Trail system, disrupt and destroy the Communist base areas and supply routes east and west of Tchepone. Thus began, so far, the first and only huge conventional battle involving airmobile forces between seasoned, dangerous military powers.

This proved far more savage than airmobile warfare in South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese had spent years improving their supply routes through Laos. By early 1971 the two main base areas, 604 and 611, were covered by the strongest layered flak defences anywhere on the planet other than those guarding Hanoi. No less than five strong NVA divisions and 50,000 other troops including tanks and superb artillery awaited the South Vietnamese. Reinforcements came from south and north, including SAMs once the battle intensified.

To give today's soldiers an idea of the scale, the Americans flew 90,000 helicopter sorties - 34,000 with gunships - and lost nearly 1000 helicopters downed or damaged over 6 weeks fighting. Some 10,000 fighter air strikes were flown, nearly 2000 by US Navy carrier aircraft, and 2000 sorties by B 52s dropped nearly 50,000 tons of bombs. The casualties on both sides were horrendous. American helicopter crews had been winding down a long war. Suddenly they fought for their lives, flying mission after mission onto landing zones swept by AAA and bombarded by mortars and long range guns. Over the south 1500 feet had been a safe height. Over Laos nothing below 6000 feet was safe. Their courage was formidable. After two weeks South Vietnam's airborne troops were losing a battalion a day. The North Vietnamese Army lost at least 20,000 men.

Apart from Colonel John Waddy, myself, and three rather courageous journalists - one of whom paid with his life - nobody British witnessed a second of the watershed in modern warfare. The British Army showed no interest in John's reports and remains in a mental time warp.

  *

British generals always find change a struggle. During the nineteenth century they resisted the abolition of flogging. The generals staunchly opposed the great reforms that laid the foundations of Kitchener's citizen army during World War One. For much of the first half of the twentieth century they refused to give up their horses for tanks - to the despair of men like Fuller and Liddell-Hart, not to mention Winston Churchill who encouraged the invention of the tank. As Field Marshal Heinz Guderian remarked, we had the greatest tank strategists in the World though fortunately - for the German Army - no tank generals. For the last 40 years Britain's generals steadfastly refused to relinquish their heavy tanks for helicopters.

Modern airmobile tactics were proven and refined during the Vietnam War. Britain was not involved with the Vietnam War. Consequently the US Army - and the Australians and New Zealanders - spent a decade fighting another way. Vietnam demanded all the military and civilian expertise and sigint resources that Sir Richard suggests are needed in future wars. His words reveal how insular our generals remain today. Vietnam was the crucible for airmobile warfare. Laos was the ultimate test.

The war also showed that a guerrilla campaign could not destroy a democratic government, no matter how weak and corrupt, but could pave the way for a conventional invasion once the victim was thoroughly weakened. American soldiers and Marines learnt all the lessons applied today in Afghanistan. The 173 Airborne provided security for the Binh Dinh local elections in 1970 - against a regular NVA division that was a lot tougher than the Taliban. The same duty was carried out by many other US combat formations the length of South Vietnam. Although the US Army needed a dangerous crisis in Iraq and General David Petraeus to prompt a revival of the political techniques they honed in Vietnam, the US Navy and USAAF built upon the military skills and lessons learned. Smart bombs were knocking out NVA tanks in spring 1972, long before Desert Storm. Some 40 years ago I remember the US Marines changing the codes between rifle companies every two hours because the Russian eavesdroppers beyond the DMZ in North Vietnam otherwise would crack their messages. That was long after cyber dawn. Perhaps more revealing for our purposes, General Abe Abrams, US Commander in Vietnam, told me that the great thing about the Australian/New Zealand Task Force was that he could stop worrying about the Province they looked after. Contrast his words with later concerns about Basra and Helmand. No matter how professional and courageous - and we do have some very good generals although they're the ones who don't go in for politics - our Army is too small for making a strategic impact, anywhere. Sending another few thousand troops into Afghanistan - or anywhere else on that scale - will make not the slightest difference. More SAS backed by naval cruise missiles might cross the Iranian border. Not conventional infantry - unless led by another Alexander the Great.

Colonel John Waddy - serving forty years ago as the first Colonel Special Forces in the British Army - despaired of the Army leadership over its Cold War tactics and equipment. Little has changed. British generals fought two Gulf Wars with conventional armoured and infantry tactics and attempted the same in Afghanistan. Demands for better armoured vehicles were the generals' solution, while the grateful enemy simply made more powerful mines. Over the last three years £ 3.5 billions have been spent on Urgent Operational Requirements, purchases of equipment, for Afghanistan. Nearly all that money went on heavier and heavier vehicles rather than grasping the nettle and ordering £ 3.5 billions worth of helicopters and out-flanking the mine layers overnight. The generals allowed the Taliban to keep calling the tactical shots.  The RAF still operate troop carrying helicopters that are regarded as normal for the TO&E of a US brigade. Between June 1940 and May 1943 the defeated and largely unarmed British Army went from not a single paratrooper to raise two airborne divisions with a third forming in India - proving that a completely new form of warfare can go from drawing board to drop zone at astonishing speed given a fair wind. I wonder how much cash modern generals requested for language training.

 The planners and operations staff took on a role in Afghanistan without accurate intelligence - I suspect almost without any intelligence. Now our small though redoubtable force, taking pointless casualties because it travels by ground, at least has been relieved by the US Marine Corps with many, many helicopters. British generals serving today were involved with the original stupid decision to insert an isolated brigade. The result was a rather dusty slow motion Dien Bien Phu. Some generals remain desperate to clear their reputations. Why should our troops risk their lives and limbs over a decade for salvaging reputations? If the senior generals cannot see the wood for the trees, nor it seems, does David Cameron.

Labour's original 1998 plan for the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force was a step in the right direction given that we are on the threshold of a series of conflicts between large and small nations. By that I do not mean world war, rather a period of history similar to the eighteenth century, when conflicts break out between combinations of major and minor states right across the globe for control and ownership of its natural resources. Argentina's latest confrontation over the Falkland Islands provides a good example of what is likely to become the norm for states in financial and political trouble. The 1998 plan left the Navy short of escorts and submarines, the Army without air-portable armour and artillery, the RAF short of strategic airlift but the plan laid solid foundations. The Army's troubles in Iraq and Afghanistan threw a huge spanner in the works. That problem should be solved without damaging the other two Services.

Can that be done - yes, it can.

*

The Royal Navy's future aircraft carriers now will operate conventional versions of the Joint Combat fighter rather than STOVL variants. This decision, taken in haste by the Prime Minister and his Chancellor - not the admirals - turns the clock back to the 1960s. While there are some arguments for returning to conventional fighters flying off angled flight decks - which allows American and French conventional fighters to cross-deck - the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force are denied highly versatile technology and tactics in which Britain led the World and proven in sea and land combat.

During the South Atlantic War the Sea Harriers and Ground Attack Harriers operated from aircraft carriers and hastily prepared strips on the islands. The first fighters based in Afghanistan were Harriers - no other jet fighter was able to fly from the rough strips available. 

The US Marine Corps, Spain and Italy will operate British designed Harrier STOVL fighters. Marine seaborne Harriers are stationed off Libya. American politicians cannot treat their armed forces with contempt displayed towards ours by the House of Commons. Britain's armed forces need the kind of lobby the American services enjoy - but you have to build one, they don't just appear from a puff of magic smoke.

Above picture shows an impression of the version of the new carrier as designed for the French Navy.

HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH AND HMS PRINCE OF WALES/ARK ROYAL?

' Or we could fill her up with UK politicians and scuttle her!

Now THAT would be a reasonable use of taxpayers money on defence as it would fall under the category of removing the greatest threat to our nations well being and security.'

A popular suggestion on the soldiers' website - ARRSE - about how to use the new aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, which David Cameron's government intends sending to sea for a decade without a single aircraft on board.

JCF  1

The government are doing their best to keep defence off the front pages but some news stories will not go quietly. Scotland's papers report good progress on construction of the first new aircraft carrier. Would the Scottish Nationalist Party order super carriers for a Scottish Republic ruled from Brussels?  Many former senior officers and serving officers of all three services regard paying off HMS Ark Royal and disbanding the Harrier squadrons as a gamble involving grave national risk. Some instead would have axed the whole Tornado force. I start from a rather different viewpoint. Both the Harrier and Tornado are required until the JCF comes into service.

The Harrier's ability to land and take off from any ship with a landing deck or quite small clearings means it can deploy worldwide at almost no warning. Harriers were despatched to Helmand Province in Afghanistan because no other strike aircraft could operate from the primitive airfield at Kandahar. The trade-off is that Harriers cannot match the payloads lifted by a Tornado. None-the-less, one could deploy an aircraft carrier led force off Somalia and follow Lord Palmerston's approach to pirates - better destroy the nest than hunt each individual wasp. This is the long arm that Britain gives up with David Cameron's foolish decision. For all his ' cats and traps ' jargon, he didn't understand the strategic choices.

The Tornado is a long range strike and air defence aircraft able to carry a wide variety of weapons and with a second crew member to exploit this. JCF will match the payload of the Tornado strike version. Tornado does require friendly staging points and bases to reach places outside Europe. That has worked for two decades in the Middle East and Afghanistan because the region borders a NATO member and friendly states. Britain has bases in Cyprus and within the region. Other parts of the World lie beyond this comfort zone. Long ocean crossings make some deployments near enough impossible or not worth such effort. That's the point where the Royal Navy take over. That's the common sense choice but Cameron's Liberal government don't do things the smart way.

Faced with the destruction of the RAF's ability to strike - according to Lord Trenchard the fundamental role of an independent air force - what else was the Chief of the Air Staff expected to do, other than keep his Service alive for another day - and that came within weeks, Libya. This is the price that the Royal Navy and the RAF pay for those senior Army officers who broke ranks and failed to fight for the defence budget as a whole. The price the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force - most of all thousands of young men and women serving in Afghanistan and off Libya - pay daily for appalling lack of common sense, simple planning, never mind strategy, over the last four years, by British generals and politicians completely out of their depth. I see not the least sign of any improvement among either.

* 

A government that lightly showers 40% more billions on international largesse can obviously afford a slightly increased defence budget. A government that slashes the diplomatic service by 25% while slashing defence by effectively 20% is strategically illiterate. There are arguments for a generous aid budget though as part of a package which includes more diplomats to exploit the political benefits and a strong navy to back up our diplomats. No evidence has been produced by the Cameron government to persuade me - and many others - that the effectiveness and value of aid has been thoroughly examined.

This is also a government where the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary are either fools or wield little power. Slashing the Harriers and HMS Ark Royal saves about £ 200 millions a year. Slashing the STOVL version of the JCF 35 abandons the ability to deploy anywhere, world wide. The cost of Cameron's ' cats and traps ' for the French conventional Rafale with no stealth technology adds a further £ 1.6 billions on the carrier programme. That's pound wise, billions foolish. No wonder the Queen chose to visit the ship's company of HMS Ark Royal on Guy Fawkes Day.

A picture is worth a thousand words - Her Majesty with the ship's company of HMS Ark Royal on the 5 November 2010

Photos courtesy the Royal Navy

Last autumn I asked the new Chief of the Air Staff whether all three service chiefs knew they must stick together when putting their case for the defence budget. Sir Stephen Dalton answered emphatically, yes. I was told that another £ 2.5 billions a year on the budget would allow the three Services to meet all their operational tasks and purchase all the equipment planned. The new Chief of the Naval Staff, Sir Mark Stanhope, was present. Unfortunately no senior Army officer attended the lunch and lecture afterwards at the Royal United Services Institute in London. 

Few experts survive as defence editors and writers in Britain's media. Over the last months I have read endless partisan briefing against the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. The aircraft carrier programme came in for particular hostility. Much of this material - according to the Daily Telegraph - first saw the light of day in a ' black ' briefing team set up privately by the Army to fight its sister services for money. Should this story prove correct - over to the House of Commons Select Committee on Defence - tax payers deserve to know who gave permission for our money to be spent in this wasteful manner. Small wonder that so much nonsense has surfaced in the media and that young, inexperienced politicians swallowed the medicine without an intelligent question raised. The Prime Minister spouted naval codswallop for half an hour when presenting his defence ' strategy ' before the House of Commons.

 So far, there is no sign of any investigation, indicating ministerial connivance, possibly Downing Street. All this probably is traceable, retired generals have been the busiest mouth pieces. Moreover, hostile briefing continues, peddling the same old line - war between states is unlikely - though ironically the lexicon claims the American ' military ' say carriers soon would be sunk in a war against China given that country's new carrier-killer missile. Anyone starting a war against China would take out the supporting satellites and ground base at Shaoguan long before their own fleet quit harbour. This also raises how much damage the Chinese regime is willing for its people to suffer over preserving face. China today is not the peasant nation that Mao herded towards mass slaughter on the Korean peninsular. 

The US Navy provides their super carriers with powerful escort forces to protect them from missile and submarine attack from any country. The last time a missile was fired at a US carrier, off Iraq, the missile was shot down by an escorting British destroyer. Navies keep control of the sea by deploying balanced fleets. Frigates patrolling in potentially hostile waters need back up from more powerful destroyers, submarines, and sometimes carrier and land-based fighters, plus long range reconnaissance aircraft. Hostile media lines rely on press and public ignorance. There's a lot around. 

*

THE ORIGINAL STOVL VERSION

The new aircraft carriers will be the largest warships ever built for the Royal Navy weighing in at 65,000 tons fully loaded and 930 feet long with a wide beam, much closer in size to the US Navy's strike carriers though with only 1300/1400 complement rather than nearly 5000 on a US carrier. The Royal Navy are purchasing 65% of the power enjoyed by a US Navy super carrier for about 35% of the latter's cost. The new ships can take an air group of at least 40 fighters and helicopters but given their size one suspects that this number could increase during an emergency. Close defence weapons reflect the lessons from the Falklands War.

The flight deck has two islands, one for steering the ship and a second for controlling its aircraft. The ski jump bow shown in the above photo allows STOVL fighters to use less fuel and take off while carrying a heavy load. This plan has now changed. Catapults are planned, ostensibly, so that US and French aircraft may operate from the new carriers. This reason, given to Parliament, borders on deception. No less than 340 STOVL versions of the JCF 35 fighter have been ordered for the US Marine Corps. All could fly off the new carriers. Moreover, VSTOL versions allow the Royal Navy to operate the JC35F from all its present aircraft carriers, thereby making possible not only cross-decking operations, but a pool of major warships, a reserve fleet with a reserve of fighters from the Royal Navy and the RAF. The US Navy have ordered 480 conventional naval versions of the fighter and these do need catapults. More likely by fitting catapults the government hope to make HMS Queen Elizabeth, the first carrier, attractive to France or India at a bargain basement price. Whatever the UK government's self-delusion, France's shipyards are most unlikely to accept such a deal - Sarkosy has troubles enough - given the French government still fears and respects popular national pride.

 Over a lifetime of 50 years the ships may increase to 75,000 tons fully loaded as additions are made - such as armour plate on the flight deck and sides - and possibly further deck space added. France plans a single aircraft carrier along the same design though weighing 75,000 tons, presumably its armour and catapults given that the ship's design length and beam are the same. Apart from ensuring Britain's future as a global power the aircraft carrier programme provides 15,000 highly skilled engineering jobs and manufacturing the aircraft, soon many more.

We know that since the election a hostile group of officials in the Treasury keep trying to scuttle the carrier programme with the declared support of David Cameron and George Osborne - above all Nick Clegg. All three will look for obvious sources of cash for tax reduction before the next general election and the armed forces come a long way after overseas aid for third world dictators. Clegg has his party's agenda to promote and, so far, manages from the back seat of his official limmo' to steer the Conservative Party ever further from its natural, solid political ground. Since the Chancellor announced his version of roulette the full picture became sharp. The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force are to be severely weakened, not for sound political reasons, but for switching billions of pounds towards the Liberal-Democrat political agenda.

Read the American newspapers for a realistic view of the likely impact on the UK economy of the coalition's spending cuts. Though pour yourself a stiff drink first. Nobel Prize economists describe them as economic illiterates. Pray they know how to find reverse gear. Also keep in mind that the Liberal Democrats want to give up the nuclear deterrent and ultimately would like Britain fully absorbed within the EC super state. Nick Clegg is much more a Continental European than an English islander. Far more willing to live within a large centralised state with its own armed forces and a foreign policy that does not reflect the gut instincts of British voters. Indeed, the nearest people to ourselves in Europe are the Swiss, almost certain to stay outside the EC rather than give up their direct democracy after 800 years. And the Swiss illustrate the difference. Switzerland has many of the same problems as Britain but the people have the facts and the power, not just their politicians, so they sort out a mess straight away.

We're in for a long battle, already involving the French government as well, one where we can't afford the divisive and short-sighted tactics employed by the generals. This time they had better line up with the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. Otherwise they risk dangling from the lamps along Whitehall - in case they didn't see the faces of the Police around Parliament on cuts day, not at all happy with a 20% slash in their own budget. The Army must change because its recruiting is going to fall off much faster than the other two Services. As things stand the Royal Navy and the RAF are paying for an absurd 37% boost in the overseas aid budget. This is gesture politics heading for the full Moon. And placing the nation at grave risk.  More elsewhere on these pages. The original 1998 Defence Review by the Labour Party was in many ways a sound plan never funded properly. Labour's new team might convert a lot of Conservative voters by making clear that the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force will have their strength restored as a defence and industrial priority. As a tactical hook the RN and the RAF must fight together to ensure that at least 150 JSF are purchased. Anyone who wonders why Tornado needs a replacement should study the JCF payload - about 18,000 pounds weight, about the same as a Tornado. There are strong arguments for building a third big aircraft carrier - see article at World News Three. 

*

She looks good but needs Tomahawk cruise missiles and Harpoon missiles plus Phalanx AAA and torpedoes against submarines. There's plenty of room for the lot on a Daring Class destroyer. Only the Prime Minister forgot to cover all that before the House of Commons.

*

Winston Churchill's are born once in 200 years or so but we can still learn from them. Churchill would be hounding his generals until somebody came up with a plan to cut the bomb-makers' throats en masse or as near as makes no odds. And even the smartest, nastiest opponent makes simple though acopolictic mistakes. I recommend taking time to read a wonderful recent article in Der Spiegel which begins with a night in 1932 when Winston Churchill, then in the wilderness, took his family to Munich while researching for a new book, probably his best, Marlborough - His Life and Times. Curious to meet the rising politician busy destroying the Weimer Republic, Churchill invited Adolf Hitler to dinner at the Grand Hotel Continental in Munich. Somewhat windswept after a political rally, un-shaven and wearing a grubby trench coat, Hitler was in the hotel lobby, talking with a Nazi Party donor. Not far away in the hotel, his foreign press agent, Ernst Putzi Hanfstaengl, and the Churchill family already tucked into their desserts, waiting in hope for the main guest.

Eventually Hanfstaengl excused himself from the table and found a telephone cabin. Despite pleading over the telephone, that non-appearance risked an affront to a rather distinguished visitor, the future Fuhrer admonished, ' Hanfstaengl, you know perfectly well that I have a lot to do at the moment and that we want to make an early start tomorrow. So...good night.'

Churchill took it well - Hanfstaengl played the piano after dinner for Scottish songs while Hitler missed his only chance to meet the man who would bring him to his knees.

*

HMS Richmond, Type 23 Destroyer, firing a Harpoon missile.

Three Type 23s were sold to Chile, all three ships only six years old. No offence to the Chile's Navy - these ships should patrol Falklands waters today flying white ensigns. Their design incorporates all the lessons from the 1982 South Atlantic War. Harpoon missiles possess three times the range of the Exocets carried by Argentina's modern destroyers.

Former Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan, sipping coffee in an Ottawa hotel back in April 1982, told me that during the late 1970s when Argentina previously threatened the Falklands he was offered two naval options - send surface ships rather publicly or send nuclear submarines discreetly. With a canny smile, he added,' I sent both.' 

Jim Callaghan then added, ' When you're on the phone to Downing Street this morning, Adrian, remind the lady who ordered all those ships she's sending south.'

I conveyed his message, diplomatically....

*

The post Harold Macmillan version of the Conservative Party are burdened with an appalling record over defence. From Duncan Sandys to John Nott each generation of ministers slashed defence regardless of the consequences. Some Conservative MPs show real anger about the bribes thrown to the Liberal-Democrats to keep the coalition together. Leaving aside Vince Cable the Liberal party is no longer the party that built the Dreadnoughts a century back, rather a sandals and woollies brigade who faithfully declare that our enemies also believe in peace and love. The Labour Party has just elected a left wing leader who produced a full team for the defence statement. We can rely on the trade union leaders' common sense that defence is important. Unfortunately, they don't make the decisions on our nation's safety. However, the trade unions can tell the MPs they sponsor to pack the House of Commons whenever defence is debated - and question in detail, not just file through the lobby and ritually vote against the government.

The Conservative Party has one MP north of the border thus does not care if defence jobs are lost mostly in Scotland. The Liberals have much more to lose. Both parties and Labour are now led by privileged young people with no idea how the rest live. Defence cuts like other cuts and tax hikes are aimed at millions of ordinary working families. One can be forgiven for concluding this rather closely resembles class warfare.

* 

Their most influential advisers, generals, wear blinkers and charged into politics without much brain. A small army backed by a skeleton navy and air force swiftly becomes a very expensive liability. It can't defend our overseas dependencies nor operate globally. Argentine could take Mount Pleasant Airfield and the Army would lose another 1500 troops as POWs. Britain's ground force in Afghanistan could land in trouble and Ministers won't have any means to send a rescue party. Invading Iraq from Kuwait with supply by sea was easier than invading from Turkey over a long land supply line.

Cameron's coalition will sell several of the Royal Navy's core force of destroyers and show no interest in the Merchant Navy. The Cameron government removed all VTOL Harriers, most of the RAF's strike aircraft and the maritime reconnaissance aircraft that defend our islands and protect our nuclear deterrent. The latter move leaves our deterrent submarine force stark naked. Half a navy and half an air force are no defence at all though will cost at least £ 20 billions a year.

Human cost of this gambling? Probably another Conservative induced international catastrophe. The Falkland Islanders may produce enough oil to pay for their own defence but this play yard gang don't think beyond their noses. Money needed for colonial ground wars? Probably £ 15 - 20 billions a year on an Army with no naval or air support. Thus half a defence, although no defence at all, costs £ 40 billions a year.

The Merchant Navy grows as owners - fearing the increasing risks at sea - return to the red duster.

Photo Royal Navy

When asked by the House of Commons Select Committee on Public Administration, the National Security Adviser couldn't explain what is meant by strategy, offering instead that of course he understood strategy - there was a box on his annual report that had to be ticked!

In fairness, neither could William Hague answer sensibly.

*

' Double the effort and square the error.'

Sir Robert Thompson describing the worst form of strategy - debating with Adrian over a Chinese meal in wartime Saigon.

THE PRESIDENT'S DILEMMA

None - under his watch the United States found Bin Laden. Who's next?

*

Personally, I think President Obama's staff should have stopped him returning Winston Churchill's bust to the British Embassy. This was seen as a churlish act by the British people, who expected bigger things from America's first black president. Their bench mark is Nelson Mandela. Perhaps, the President should have asked for a temporary exchange, a bust of Clement Atlee whose National Health Service remains an example to the world. Clem' would have been a daily inspiration for him, that - yes, we can.

*

The Special Relationship

USS Winston Churchill making an emergency break away from the USS Harry S Truman. She is the only ship in the US Navy permanently assigned a Royal Navy officer - she flies the Stars and Stripes and the White Ensign. Escorting astern of the carrier and her support ship is HMS Manchester. Clicking this photo leads straight to how the Special Relationship began.

*

HMS Daring - photo Royal Navy and BAE

***************

JUST CLICK THE FIGHTER FOR WORLD NEWS ONE - INTELLIGENCE AND DIPLOMACY

WORLD NEWS TWO - BRITAIN'S FORCES NEED MORE IMAGINATION, CASH, PEOPLE, SHIPS, AIRCRAFT AND MOBILITY

WORLD NEWS THREE - NAVAL AIR POWER

WORLD NEWS FOUR - DESTROYERS AND FRIGATES

WORLD NEWS FIVE - REFORM OF THE BRITISH ARMY

WORLD NEWS SIX - CHINA AND KOREA

WORLD NEWS SEVEN - THE GREAT DEBATE

*******

OUR NORMANDY D DAY AIR & LAND TOURS

Anyone taking our Normandy sky tour finds it helpful to have an idea of the scale of Operation Overlord and our briefing pages are worth a glance to understand some of the events before America's entry into the Second World War. Many visitors to our website probably know much of what is explained on these pages. Please grant us your forbearance. We try to ensure that those less familiar with the background to D Day, particularly the young, start their tour with a sound conception of what was at stake thereby making their time with us all the more worthwhile and enjoyable.

Just click the Spitfire...

OUR VIRTUAL D DAY TOUR HAS LOTS OF PHOTOS OF THE LEGENDARY SITES TODAY

SEE ALSO

                     OUR SKY GUIDES          STOP PRESS          OUR TOURS PAGE